If you could have only one synth, what would you choose?

[syntonica]

What is this thread about?

Dealing with loss.

Don't worry. It won't get any better. Just different.

[cryophonik]

What is this thread about?

IDK, apparently we're all gonna be limited to one synth in some fictional future realm or something. And, this is not to be taken lightly. It's serious stuff.

[Michael L]

What is this thread about?

Dealing with loss.

Loss of analog meaning in life when everything is digital and blurs together in a vast continuum of numbers . . .

[_leras]

It seems a very capable and great sounding synth.

I don't have any Tone 2 synths - would you say this supersedes their other synths?

(Just a shame about no modern modulation mapping just old school matrix...)

You can drag-n-drop modulation in Icarus... and also adjust the depths on the knobs without using the Matrix. But if you have 2 plus modulators on the same parameter, then you need the Matrix.

Thanks pdx!

I might take the time to demo this - I really like the sounds it made, it seems amazingly flexible and also a good sample playing synth.

[_leras]

What is this thread about?

Dealing with loss.

Don't worry. It won't get any better. Just different.

Well, I was prepared for pedantic discussion of the overlapping lines from sampler to synthesiser.

Wasn't prepared for the pedantic discussion about if the pedantic points were pedantic enough...!

[whyterabbyt]

Wasn't prepared for the pedantic discussion about if the pedantic points were pedantic enough...!

new here, then?

[dmbaer]

The waveforms found in digital synths, unless calculated on the fly and thus not stored at all, are not stored as vectors, they are stored as sequences of values, ie samples.

That's one possibility, but there's another common one: storing the frequency domain version of the waveform descriptor (maybe there's a better word than "descriptor", but hopefully my meaning is clear). Rob Papen Preditor 3 synth uses wavetable synthesis for sound generation, but stores the waveforms as frequency domain tables. How do we know this? The manual actually provides this information.

Also, there's a good chance some folks here will be confused about the term "wavetable". Wavetable synthesis has been around for a very long time. It's a fairly efficient way to generate sound from a sequence of values that define a single cycle of a tone. Most people today think of wavetable to mean a one-dimensional array of single-cycle waveforms that uses an index to pull the current waveform from. The double use of the name is regrettable.

[whyterabbyt]

The waveforms found in digital synths, unless calculated on the fly and thus not stored at all, are not stored as vectors, they are stored as sequences of values, ie samples.

That's one possibility, but there's another common one: storing the frequency domain version of the waveform descriptor (maybe there's a better word than "descriptor", but hopefully my meaning is clear). Rob Papen Preditor 3 synth uses wavetable synthesis for sound generation, but stores the waveforms as frequency domain tables. How do we know this? The manual actually provides this information.

fair enough that there are indeed alternate data forms that could be stored. does it synthesise directly from those tables, though, or does it render to 'amplitude' form for that? that's not unknown for calculated waveforms.

but are frequency domain tables actually that common?

Also, there's a good chance some folks here will be confused about the term "wavetable". Wavetable synthesis has been around for a very long time. It's a fairly efficient way to generate sound from a sequence of values that define a single cycle of a tone. Most people today think of wavetable to mean a one-dimensional array of single-cycle waveforms that uses an index to pull the current waveform from. The double use of the name is regrettable.

Yup, it is.

[Dencheg]

Wavetable doesn't mean a wav file.

No, it means a table that stores the values that constitute a waveform.

It's called "wavetable" just not to be called "waveformtable"

False.

Waveforms in synths aren't rasters, historically.

Waveforms in synths are arrays of sequential stored amplitude values, not vectors, historically.

They might look like they aren't vectors, but they are

Describe exactly how a stored amplitude is a vector, not an amplitude. How is the direction stored?

That's cool. Let me extend "my definition": a synth waveform is a shape, defined continously, for every point of time.
That's why analog oscs don't alias.
As long as an osc can generate a continuous shape from a moderate amount of points, it's a synth osc.
Or if a synth strives to generate a contionous shape, like analog synth emulations or digital synths - still a synth, in my book.

Samplers don't generate a continous waveforms from 3 (or more) points or formulas, they use recorded sounds, with lots of discrete amplitude values.

That's why many VIs (e.g. Dune 3 or ANA 2) have sample oscs and synths oscs. They a different oscs.

So far I stand my point.
Otherwise, you know, I have some arguments to prove that a crocodile is wider than longer, but usually it's not required on reptile forums.

[RunBeerRun]

One time I woke up in the trash and there was whiskey everywhere

[jamcat]

This is why you should stick to beer.

[gaggle of hermits]

That's cool. Let me extend "my definition": a synth waveform is a shape, defined continously, for every point of time.
That's why analog oscs don't alias.
As long as an osc can generate a continuous shape from a moderate amount of points, it's a synth osc.
Or if a synth strives to generate a contionous shape, like analog synth emulations or digital synths - still a synth, in my book.

Samplers don't generate a continous waveforms from 3 (or more) points or formulas, they use recorded sounds, with lots of discrete amplitude values.

that’s brilliant. you’ve now excluded all digital synths - hardware or software - from the list of possible synths. your favourite synth, viper, is now not a synth. congratulations. great job.

on top of completely misunderstanding nyquist’s theorem.

do you do encores?

[mixyguy2]

Kontakt cannot host VIs.

You might want to talk to 8Dio, Spitfire, and I could go on and on and on about basically every company that requires Kontakt to run their VIs. Not only CAN Kontakt host VIs, THAT IS ITS ENTIRE PURPOSE.

Kontakt instruments, however are not software,

omg dude. You can't be serious. So you're saying they're hardware? Really?

A 'Kontakt instrument' is nothing more than a synonym for 'sampleset' or 'preset' or 'patch'. They cannot generate sound in and of themselves.

That's "wrong." So Massive and Absynth are just "presets" or "patches?" Ah sorry, no.

[Uncle E]

You might want to talk to 8Dio, Spitfire, and I could go on and on and on about basically every company that requires Kontakt to run their VIs.

8Dio and Spitfire make Kontakt and Kontakt Player libraries, not standalone VI's. Kontakt and Kontakt Player are the VI's, 8Dio and Spitfire libraries work inside of them.

I think Spitfire LABS is a standalone VI that doesn't have anything to do with Kontakt.

[gaggle of hermits]

You might want to talk to 8Dio, Spitfire, and I could go on and on and on about basically every company that requires Kontakt to run their VIs. Not only CAN Kontakt host VIs, THAT IS ITS ENTIRE PURPOSE.

they're sample libraries. maybe you refer them as VIs but most people don't.